Table 4.
A test of the mediation effects of self-control on cyberloafing intentions (N = 46).
| Predictors | Equation 1 | Equation 2 | Equation 3 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (criterion: cyberloafing intentions) |
(criterion: sense of control) |
(criterion: cyberloafing intentions) |
|||||||
| B | 95% CI | β | B | 95% CI | β | B | 95% CI | β | |
| Gender | -0.36 | (-1.11, 0.38) | -0.12 | 0.15 | (-0.34, 0.64) | 0.091 | -0.29 | (-1.00, 0.42) | -0.093 |
| Age | 0.049 | (-0.011, 0.11) | 0.19 | -0.012 | (-0.052, 0.027) | -0.093 | 0.042 | (-0.015, 0.099) | 0.17 |
| Future orientation | -1.82 | (-2.50, -1.14) | -0.63∗∗∗ | 0.49 | (0.031, 0.94) | 0.31∗ | -1.57 | (-2.26, -0.89) | -0.54∗∗∗ |
| Sense of self-Control | -0.51 | (-0.95, -0.66) | -0.27∗ | ||||||
| R2 | 0.44∗∗∗ | 0.12∗ | 0.51∗∗∗ | ||||||
Each column set is a regression equation that predicts the criterion at the top of the column. Gender was dummy coded such that 0 = “female” and 1 = “male.” Future Orientation was also dummy coded such that 0 = “control condition” and 1 = “future priming condition.” ∗p < 0.05; ∗∗∗p < 0.001.